Senator Judd Gregg

I would like to know if the Senator is going to back the Climate Bill now before the Senate and the full reason why to his yes or no.
Thank you
Deborah de Moulpied

Hi, I would like to know what the senator plans to do to increase the availability, affordability and quality of primary care and preventive medicine in NH and nationally?

Would he support primary care provider's loan forgiveness program similar to the one President Obama hinted at last week? If not, how would he mitigate the exorbitant barrier-to-entry of med school tuition. Surely as Republican Granite-Stater, he must favor the pure capitalistic competition of functioning markets.

New Jersey has a similar proposal advancing through its legislature now; it already passed the Assembly. http://www.politickernj.com/jbutkowski/30738/weinberg-turner-measure-exp...

Senator Gregg has supported measures to preserve federal student aid and college access programs administered through private nonprofit organizations such as NH Higher Education Assistance Foundation (NHHEAF). Can the Senator comment on the President's plan to eliminate Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL)agencies like NHHEAF?

I would like to hear more about Senator Gregg's health care proposal that he says will cover all Americans. How will it be funded and is it possible to force private companies to insure unprofitable people- people with expensive prior conditions that have to be treated?

Thanks

If you include the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, you will see tons of carbon emissions and environmental pollution everywhere - mining, milling, enriching, transportation. When you construct nuclear plants, there are tons of emissions from that process. When you operate a nuclear plant, off-site electricity is used to operate the plant (carbon emitting sources).

Nuclear plants emit - radiation - routine releases and accidental releases, as well as highly radioactive waster. No, there is not safe reprocessing. The dirty little secret of supposed French reprocessing is coming to light with a trail of radioactive spills and waste polluting the environment.

Nuclear plants are highly susceptible to terrorism and if built at the level Mr. Gregg suggests, would threaten our democracy due to the need for incredibly high security.

Nuclear plants cost $6-10 billion to build and take 5-10 years to do so. Think about investing that $600 billion - $1 trillion into decentralized safe alternative renewable sources. Think of the economy that could build - jobs, jobs, and more jobs.

Mr. Gregg is proposing the past - nuclear power is a dinosaur. Let's move into the real 21st century - the US has always been about invention, innovation and creation.

I would like to ask the Senator - how many people in Britain, Canada et al lose their homes and small businesses due to an illness? Also, some people without insurance would be glad to see ANY doctor even a doctor determined by a politician. I feel because our politicians never have to worry about health insurance, those who cannot afford it and do not have it are left behind. They can't afford lobbyists.

As for trying to get healthy - some people cannot afford the gym membership, don't have time from their 2-3 jobs to go to the doctor or take a walk, cannot afford the high cost of good food - vegetables off season in New England are expensive. Who speaks for them?

In the first 20 minutes of his appearance, Senator Gregg has rudely dismissed listeners' questions -- "the caller doesn't know what she's talking about"; "if the caller doesn't like making money, he doesn't believe in the American system". Laura Knoy should point out to him that this show is about polite discourse and sharing of ideas from many perspectives; it does not fit the program's interests to have a guest rudely dismiss callers' concerns.

Senator Gregg rudely remarked that "I don't know what I'm talking about" when I commented on the air about the need to reduce global carbon emissions within the next few years to avert climate catastrophe. Does Senator Gregg know more than the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change)? Global warming is happening faster than scientists predicted, and I was merely citing what top climate scientists like James Hansen have said.

Senator Gregg also commented that the climate bill won't reduce emissions till 2025. That's a gross distortion, although I do agree wholeheartedly that the climate bill needs to be strengthened.

And don't believe Senator Gregg's claim that the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) won't pass the Senate. If many of us speak up again and again over the next few weeks. calling and emailing our Senators, and writing letters to the Editor, we can help get ACES passed.

I disagree with everything Sen. Gregg had to say. It is clear to me that he is out of touch with the realities of everyday life for the people he is supposed to represent in Washington and is quite glib about the supposed solutions to problems that we would have to deal with ad finitum if he had his way.

Regarding health care - every Canadian I have talked to or have gotten to know personally loves their health care system. You get sick -- you go to the doctor and get treated. It works and the satisfaction rate is high.

I have lived in two countries that have universal health care - Japan and France, and in both systems the entire range of health issues including mental health care and dentistry is covered. One way they keep costs under control is to provide medical education for free to those students who qualify for entrance. Thus, they have a medical culture in which treating patients and helping them to get and stay well is the primary motive of physicians. We, in contrast, have a medical culture that treats patients as profit centers, and that gets started when young physicians are faced with the reality of having to pay back loans for their medical education. One thing that has not been discussed as part of our new medical system that I think makes enormous good sense would be to make medical education free to everyone and to forgive the loans of any young physician who is still repaying. That would create a major incentive and moral obligation for this new generation of doctors t o "give back" and treat their patients instead of trying to maximize the amount of money they make from them.

Senator Gregg cited mortality rates for breast cancer as being much higher in England than in the US as an example of superior health care of the private system over public health care. The statistic troubled me so I looked into it. The mortality rates are essentially the same in both countries, approx 25 per 100,000. This is just another good example Republican scare tactics to sway people away from universal health care for all Americans.
Here are links to my sources:
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/breast/mortality/

Also, Senator Gregg says there is no way private industry can compete with the government to provide lower cost health care. He's saying we have to live with more expensive private health care because we're a capitalist society. He implies that profit is more important than health. We really have a difference is values here. Democrats are concerned about people. Republicans are concerned about profit.